Gail mentioned the slippery slope. But it’s not like we can’t build a berm. Speech with sufficient potential to cause violence should be limited. Yes, those being violent should be persecuted, but those who even accidentally say something that could be reasonably expected to have a sufficient chance of harm as a result should also be on the hook.
It’s hard where we need to balance “safety first” (so, no potential chance at all of violence because of what someone said) with “free speech.” A letter to one’s representative that’s shared with no others might just get a form-letter response, and no consideration otherwise. In that case, you might need to rile up some others to elicit the change you seek. But if it makes sense that someone that heard you would think it appropriate to go camp out in front of a justice’s house, well, you might have to answer for that.
I’m not sure if we can have a “violence is always wrong” rule. Maybe we kinda do, other than in self-defense (and if someone’s not complying with law enforcement)? It’d kinda be a bother to always have to state explicitly when complaining about something that any response of violence is completely out of the question. Aren’t we at least that smart?
Gunnar had an Orwell quote that got me thinking. I do think slander is always wrong. But I also think people should be able to talk about hearsay, about seeing someone where they weren’t expecting them and taking a guess at why they were there. But when someone unfairly starts getting discredited, that kind of annoys me, and I think those perpetrating the rumor should at least have to eat some humble pie. Also, while liberty would be to be able to tell anyone anything – and I think our elected officials should have to take all of it – I think if you’re letting someone else have it and they say “stop,” well, if you don’t stop, shouldn’t that be classified as verbal assault or something?
And back to how Gunnar kinda started the article with the story of the attack on Salman Rushdie, yes, our courts sit back quite a bit on what people say, but vigilante justice – violent or otherwise – is real. I would think we as a free-speech-loving society should be less tolerant of the attacks on those sharing than on those sharing. How do we evolve societally without the free expression of opinion?
[I look forward to the feedback to what I just shared. Please help me be less wrong.]
Thanks for the comment, Ben! (I like the berm metaphor.)
"Aren't we at least that smart?" You optimist ;). One issue I might have with appealing to common sense when I'm in a cynical mood is that I don't think common sense is equally distributed (or means the same thing?) among people.
I also really like the verbal assault point. One thought I have there is that is (probably) has to involve some reciprocity, aka I stop when you say stop, but you also have to stop when I say so. This could devolve into a competition of 'let's put our fingers in our ears and never hear anything uncomfortable again'. An extreme example, of course, but still, some necessary truths might be hard to hear. Perhaps we should restrict this to obvious ad hominem attacks?
This is a great reflection. Limiting free speech could be a slippery slope. Yet can we not be intelligent enough to distinguish between an opinion we own and aggressively trying to influence others. I was very struck with the personal responsibility bit. For example every one of those involved in the US Capitol riot is personally responsible in my mind. Yes trump incited and invited but each person executed according to their values and beliefs and intentions. Not all of them bad or evil. But their own.
Thank you, Gail! I'm right there with you, limiting free speech could give rise to a whole bunch of problems and the limits - if any - will likely be misused by some people. At the same time I also worry: some people (consciously or not) want to be influenced and happily hand over responsibility to others who might take advantage of it. Catch-22!
Thought-provoking. Definitely interesting to read from here in America, the other side of the pond, where free speech is the first tenet enshrined in our constitution. We might have a little too much free speech as is evinced by speech becoming such an incredibly powerful weapon. Trump’s ongoing problems are a perfect example of how you ascertain the consequences of your speech beforehand--they admitted to each other and left a digital record that the intent was to rile up a bunch of angry people and send them to the US Capitol. It’s unfortunate, but we need to wake up to the fact that information is a weapon, and figure out how, without serious infringement on our liberties, we address weaponized speech. I think “hate speech” as a concept is step 1 in this process, but someone will come up with something better down the road (hopefully).
Thanks, Joe. You're right, weaponized speech especially is a challenge for the first amendment. Even if we find/agree on a way to curtail it, there will always be the issue of who gets to decide what counts and what doesn't. (The Trump case is a bit scary for me as outside observer. Like you say, there's plenty of evidence they planned it, and still they seem to be getting away with it...)
Gail mentioned the slippery slope. But it’s not like we can’t build a berm. Speech with sufficient potential to cause violence should be limited. Yes, those being violent should be persecuted, but those who even accidentally say something that could be reasonably expected to have a sufficient chance of harm as a result should also be on the hook.
It’s hard where we need to balance “safety first” (so, no potential chance at all of violence because of what someone said) with “free speech.” A letter to one’s representative that’s shared with no others might just get a form-letter response, and no consideration otherwise. In that case, you might need to rile up some others to elicit the change you seek. But if it makes sense that someone that heard you would think it appropriate to go camp out in front of a justice’s house, well, you might have to answer for that.
I’m not sure if we can have a “violence is always wrong” rule. Maybe we kinda do, other than in self-defense (and if someone’s not complying with law enforcement)? It’d kinda be a bother to always have to state explicitly when complaining about something that any response of violence is completely out of the question. Aren’t we at least that smart?
Gunnar had an Orwell quote that got me thinking. I do think slander is always wrong. But I also think people should be able to talk about hearsay, about seeing someone where they weren’t expecting them and taking a guess at why they were there. But when someone unfairly starts getting discredited, that kind of annoys me, and I think those perpetrating the rumor should at least have to eat some humble pie. Also, while liberty would be to be able to tell anyone anything – and I think our elected officials should have to take all of it – I think if you’re letting someone else have it and they say “stop,” well, if you don’t stop, shouldn’t that be classified as verbal assault or something?
And back to how Gunnar kinda started the article with the story of the attack on Salman Rushdie, yes, our courts sit back quite a bit on what people say, but vigilante justice – violent or otherwise – is real. I would think we as a free-speech-loving society should be less tolerant of the attacks on those sharing than on those sharing. How do we evolve societally without the free expression of opinion?
[I look forward to the feedback to what I just shared. Please help me be less wrong.]
Thanks for the comment, Ben! (I like the berm metaphor.)
"Aren't we at least that smart?" You optimist ;). One issue I might have with appealing to common sense when I'm in a cynical mood is that I don't think common sense is equally distributed (or means the same thing?) among people.
I also really like the verbal assault point. One thought I have there is that is (probably) has to involve some reciprocity, aka I stop when you say stop, but you also have to stop when I say so. This could devolve into a competition of 'let's put our fingers in our ears and never hear anything uncomfortable again'. An extreme example, of course, but still, some necessary truths might be hard to hear. Perhaps we should restrict this to obvious ad hominem attacks?
Tricky business.
This is a great reflection. Limiting free speech could be a slippery slope. Yet can we not be intelligent enough to distinguish between an opinion we own and aggressively trying to influence others. I was very struck with the personal responsibility bit. For example every one of those involved in the US Capitol riot is personally responsible in my mind. Yes trump incited and invited but each person executed according to their values and beliefs and intentions. Not all of them bad or evil. But their own.
Thank you, Gail! I'm right there with you, limiting free speech could give rise to a whole bunch of problems and the limits - if any - will likely be misused by some people. At the same time I also worry: some people (consciously or not) want to be influenced and happily hand over responsibility to others who might take advantage of it. Catch-22!
Thought-provoking. Definitely interesting to read from here in America, the other side of the pond, where free speech is the first tenet enshrined in our constitution. We might have a little too much free speech as is evinced by speech becoming such an incredibly powerful weapon. Trump’s ongoing problems are a perfect example of how you ascertain the consequences of your speech beforehand--they admitted to each other and left a digital record that the intent was to rile up a bunch of angry people and send them to the US Capitol. It’s unfortunate, but we need to wake up to the fact that information is a weapon, and figure out how, without serious infringement on our liberties, we address weaponized speech. I think “hate speech” as a concept is step 1 in this process, but someone will come up with something better down the road (hopefully).
Thanks, Joe. You're right, weaponized speech especially is a challenge for the first amendment. Even if we find/agree on a way to curtail it, there will always be the issue of who gets to decide what counts and what doesn't. (The Trump case is a bit scary for me as outside observer. Like you say, there's plenty of evidence they planned it, and still they seem to be getting away with it...)